Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Your wiki site claims $237 billion tax relief for individuals - a number not so far from the one you calculated. If we use the official government site, you can see that the largest part of the stimulus bill was individual tax credits, followed by tax credits for working people. Breakdown of Funding
This is by far the largest part of the stimulus bill. It far exceeds '"handouts, disproportionately to bankers, campaign donors, democratic constituencies, and money to state".
Once again, thanks for proving my point.
The gap between the number I calculated as the highest possible (including some really dubious items, see post above) and the 237 you are citing is 4.7 billion tax relief for unemployment insurance, which by definition isn't collected by working individuals.
Let's calculate handouts then to democratically-aligned companies/industries, finance, states, and democratic constituencies. I'm going to stop at 250 because I don't really want to spend half an hour + combing through the whole drat bill.
Line item: Value: Cumulative total
Unemployment benefit tax 4.7 5.7
alt-energy company credits 13 17.7
repeal bank credit 7 24.7
government contractors 11 35.7
Medicaid 86.8 122.5
Cobra subsidy 25.1 147.6
State fiscal stabilization fund 53.6 201.2
Extended UI 40 241.2
Food Stamps 19.9 261.1
I could go on (both down the list or backfilling items I left off but could have added in) but that without more work on my part more than proves wrong the comment you made bolded above false. If you have issues with any of the items on the list above, there are a bunch that could potentially replace them.
More broadly and generally, let me back up a bit and be frank. If you had initially said, "tax credits to individuals, if aggregated, are larger than any other single component of the stimulus" that would have been factually accurate, although a bit arguing-in-bad-faith-y as it would be implying that this constituted the majority of the stimulus which isn't true at all. That isn't what you did though, what you did was call me out like so:
Quote:
Originally Posted by A Common Anomaly
Four years after the stimulus was passed and people still don't know what is consisted of.
The vast majority of the stimulus was tax cuts to working individuals.
Don't call someone on something for being factually wrong unless you actually look at the data and know it's wrong. Second, don't do the first while adding in a blatantly incorrect statement yourself. Third, once the data gets brought to the table, either graciously apologize or at least stop digging the hole deeper by continuing to make factually incorrect rebuttals. It's bad form.
Nothing wrong with our infrastructure? You need to get out more. Some places are fine, others are not.
Infrastructure needs to be prioritized. We have roads in the Portland area that are operating far in excess of what they were designed to handle, and it's only getting worse as major employers expand. Extra lanes, new bridges, more light rail stops, etc need to be constructed so the economic engine can keep purring along and growing.
I see you've been walking this statement back in subsequent posts. Perhaps less kneejerk opposition and more thinking before posting would help?
Well then the people of Portland should build/expand the infrastructure.
The premise of the thread is our infrastructure is falling apart and we should build infrastructure to create jobs. Both are silly assumptions.
And I don't oppose anything here. If the infrastructure needs built then build it.
Let's discuss the President's infrastructure investment ideas. I have said for some time that the secret to getting out of this recession rests one three things:
And you have always been wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddlehead
1. Stock market recovery (check)
Stock market has no bearing on economic performance of the economy. In spite of repeated evidence demonstrating irrefutably that the stock market is not an indicator of economic performance, you insist upon remaining willfully ignorant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddlehead
2. Housing recovery ( getting there)
Another fail. You might want to ask yourself why no other States on Earth give a damn about the housing market.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddlehead
3. The fate of Joe Six Pack (middle-aged, high school educated guy in trades, construction, or manufacturing). I think this last one is the weakest link.
His fate has been predetermined.
You permanently lost more than 5 Million jobs ---as I correctly predicted you would back in 2007 --- and you are present 13.7 Million jobs short of what you and the ill-informed others claim to be "economic recovery."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddlehead
It seems that infrastructural investments, through public-private partnerships would be a great way to get Joe back to work and to create things that we could all look back on in our golden years with pride.
Right.....because we all know that Joe Sixpack is trained, experienced and certified to operate heavy construction equipment......that deserves one of these.....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddlehead
New bridges, highways, monuments, rail lines, ports, airports, campgrounds, community colleges, schools, fitness trails, business parks,etc.
Might I remind you this ain't 1935 with respect to anal retentive regulations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddlehead
So, two posts to get to the Conservative point, we won't support something that Obama proposes even if it will get guys back to work.
Political Science Fail.
Public Policy Fail.
Economics Fail.
You will fail because you do not have a cogent energy policy over the long-term (25-30) years.
You will fail because whatever idiotic moronic policies are created, will come solely from the illegal National Government.
You will fail because you are weak and you do not understand the concept and application of the Federal System.
Each of the 50 States is unique: no two are even remotely similar. Each State must develop a long-term energy plan for the next 25-30 years that will impact the 3 to 100+ Economies operating within the State positively at best, or neutral in the worst case scenario.
But you cannot do that, because you do not understand Political Science, or Economics, or Geography, or Geology, or Sociology or an host of other things which prevent you from understanding that policies of any kind are rarely (if ever) universal in their application.
The fact that a State develops a long-term energy plan yield positive economic results for that State, it does not logically follow that positive economic results will manifest themselves in the other 49 States. To be sure, some States might derive a less positive economic benefit, yet for other States there is no benefit, and for other still the impact of such a policy will be harmful and negative, resulting in job losses and economic turmoil.
Accordingly, the role of the Federal Government is to assist States to integrate their individual long-term energy policies with the long-term energy policies of other States, so that no State causes harm to another State commercially or economically.....that is the true intention and purpose of the Interstate Commerce Clause in the Constitution.
Of course, you don't have a Federal Government...you have an illegal National Government which dictates policies to States.....then the illegal National Government acts shocked when economic or social problems arise....duh dumb-asses no kidding...which part of "Federal System" do you not understand? And the of course the illegal National Government has to find a way to fix the very problems it created, and then it cannot understand why it is bankrupt....well, double dumb-ass on them.
So the very first step is for each of the several States to develop their own long-term energy policies.
Due to the dramatic differences in geology, geography, economics, demographics and such...guess what?.....no two States will have the same long-term energy policy....
....it is not a crime if States do not all have the same policies.
The second step is integrating those policies with other States.
Then you come to third step, which is deciding what parts of the infrastructure will be maintained, replaced, altered or destroyed that are consistent with long-term energy plan of the State.
And then you look at the money needed.
There is no point wasting money on infrastructure that will not be needed 10 or 20 or 30 years from now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OhioRules
There is nothing wrong with our infrastructure.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OhioRules
One bridge out of hundreds of thousands proves the infrastructure of the United States is falling apart.
You need to catch up on your reading. You can start with ODOT.
Quote:
Originally Posted by freightshaker
Quite the contrary... "IF" obama were to propose that we start taking advantage of our natural resources and drill, sell our oil and gas on the open market, while creating jobs in the energy sector and increasing revenues to the government, then I would openly support him in it.
It doesn't work that way.
Don't you understand?
It's 1965 all over again.
American oil workers cannot compete against Saudi Arabian oil workers. As Saudi-Aramco ramps up oil production, the price of oil declines and by the early 1970s, oil wells all over California, Oklahoma, Texas and Illinois are being shut down, because it costs too much to operate the wells.
You're telling me that American oil workers can compete against Uzbeks? Kazakhs? Turkmen? Tajiks?
Better guess again.
As we speak, Russia is building an huge friggin' pipeline to the Black Sea that will transport 5 Million barrels of oil per day out of Central Asia.....since the US lost in Afghanistan.
That makes your itty-bitty-teeny-tiny-rinky-dinky Alaskan Oil Pipeline presently transporting about 730,000 barrels per day to be useless for the most part.
The only reason Canadians are extracting tar sands and Americans fracking up America, is because of oil prices, but the prices have to remain high indefinitely relative to pricing in order to be profitable.
And don't forget....Central Asian oil is sweeeeet. The cost to refine high sulfur garbage oils like tar sands and fracked oil is extremely high....you should know that....you're paying for it now.
This says that over 600 bridges have failed since the 1980s. Hardly trivial.
But rather than the fear-based approach, I would challenge you to think of your grandchildren. What could we do to make their lives better?
When I visit national parks, I often seem to see campground, picnic areas, and roads, lodges built by the works project administration and civil conservation corps in the 1930s. Their efforts live on nearly a century latter. Most of what they did was not needed to avert risk, so much as to create opportunities for future generations. Why can't we have that attitude?
Well someone should fix the 600 bridges that need repaired out of the hundreds of thousands that work fine. Hardly a problem.
Who said a bridge is only needed to avert risk?
Opportunites for the next generation? lols.
You might be an economic illiterate if you think that the government building roads produces demand for roads and not the other way around.
The gap between the number I calculated as the highest possible (including some really dubious items, see post above) and the 237 you are citing is 4.7 billion tax relief for unemployment insurance, which by definition isn't collected by working individuals.
Let's calculate handouts then to democratically-aligned companies/industries, finance, states, and democratic constituencies. I'm going to stop at 250 because I don't really want to spend half an hour + combing through the whole drat bill.
Line item: Value: Cumulative total
Unemployment benefit tax 4.7 5.7
alt-energy company credits 13 17.7
repeal bank credit 7 24.7
government contractors 11 35.7
Medicaid 86.8 122.5
Cobra subsidy 25.1 147.6
State fiscal stabilization fund 53.6 201.2
Extended UI 40 241.2
Food Stamps 19.9 261.1
I could go on (both down the list or backfilling items I left off but could have added in) but that without more work on my part more than proves wrong the comment you made bolded above false. If you have issues with any of the items on the list above, there are a bunch that could potentially replace them.
More broadly and generally, let me back up a bit and be frank. If you had initially said, "tax credits to individuals, if aggregated, are larger than any other single component of the stimulus" that would have been factually accurate, although a bit arguing-in-bad-faith-y as it would be implying that this constituted the majority of the stimulus which isn't true at all. That isn't what you did though, what you did was call me out like so:
Don't call someone on something for being factually wrong unless you actually look at the data and know it's wrong. Second, don't do the first while adding in a blatantly incorrect statement yourself. Third, once the data gets brought to the table, either graciously apologize or at least stop digging the hole deeper by continuing to make factually incorrect rebuttals. It's bad form.
I see that you are having fun with number and rhetoric. What you are doing is using loose language and combining various programs together to get a number larger than the tax breaks offered to working individuals.
Even if we use your dubious rhetoric, not a single category adds up more to tax cuts received by individuals. Nice try, but no cigar.
You claim that a vast majority were handouts, disproportionately to bankers, and the best you can come up with is $7 billion out of a $840 billion stimulus billion. Again, you don't know what was in the stimulus and are making things up. How is $7 billion dollars the largest "handout" in the stimulus bill? Government contractors? Why even include them?
Again, you have to group various programs together to get a larger number than tax cuts to working individuals. Your language is dubious at best because you probably assume that these were passed to appease campaign donors and to give people free stuff to vote Democrat. It is dishonesty at its finest.
Let's discuss the President's infrastructure investment ideas. I have said for some time that the secret to getting out of this recession rests one three things:
1. Stock market recovery (check)
2. Housing recovery ( getting there)
3. The fate of Joe Six Pack (middle-aged, high school educated guy in trades, construction, or manufacturing). I think this last one is the weakest link.
It seems that infrastructural investments, through public-private partnerships would be a great way to get Joe back to work and to create things that we could all look back on in our golden years with pride. New bridges, highways, monuments, rail lines, ports, airports, campgrounds, community colleges, schools, fitness trails, business parks,etc.
Great civilizations have always invested in the future. The questions are how, for what, and where.
My short-term interest is in the locations and activities that will yield the biggest bang for the buck.
One thing I find curious, is all the politicians have been pushing for our children to go to college, and they ignore our children who go into the trade skills. College grads are not going into construction, dig ditches, and get their hands dirty.
Besides, didn't we already spend a trillion on our stimulus? How many times is 0bama gonna replay that "shovel ready jobs" shtick?
Why are people always trying to scare everyone that the infrastructure is falling apart?
We have bridges and highways across the country that need major work. Where are you living that the brigdes are all new??? Remember the bridge collapse in the midwest not too long ago? We have a lot of infrastructure that could be rebuilt.
Improving our infrastructure, particularly in our big metropolitan areas, not only improves their sustainability, it improves their economic performance. How much money is lost each year just from delays? It's in the billions.
Laughable to think our infrastructure is competitive. Maybe 50 years ago, but we've added a boatload of people since then. China erects entire subways systems in the blink of an eye, while we sit around mulling possible light rail extensions. Embarrassing.
Our top five CSAs alone (NY, LA, DC, SF, CHI) account for 25% of our nation's GDP. Improve their efficiency, along with our other big metros, and you improve our nation's economy. Simple as that.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Where are you living that the brigdes are all new??? Remember the bridge collapse in the midwest not too long ago? We have a lot of infrastructure that could be rebuilt.
